From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10259 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2002 22:06:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10252 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 22:06:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.18.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 22:06:54 -0000 Received: from camelot.ms.mff.cuni.cz (kampanus.ms.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.18.107]) by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix) with SMTP id EA09E4E823; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:06:55 +0100 (CET) Received: by camelot.ms.mff.cuni.cz (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:06:52 +0100 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 14:06:00 -0000 From: Jan Hubicka To: Gabriel Dos Reis Cc: Jan Hubicka , "Joseph S. Myers" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rth@cygnus.com Subject: Re: [3.4-BIB] Add trunc/round/floor/ceil/rint builtins Message-ID: <20021106220652.GF22059@kam.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20021106141137.GA1316@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20021106211217.GA22059@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20021106212017.GD1316@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20021106213541.GE1316@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00352.txt.bz2 > Jan Hubicka writes: > > | > Jan Hubicka writes: > | > > | > [...] > | > > | > | > | I see. Man page claims: > | > | > | CONFORMING TO > | > | > | The floor() function conforms to SVID 3, POSIX, BSD 4.3, ISO > | > | > | 9899. The other functions are from C99. > | > | > | > | > | > | So I will disable the builtins for non c++ except for floor, right? > | > | > > | > | > If they are seen as __builtin_xxx() in source code then I don't think > | > | > there is any need to disable them for C++. > | > | I meant c99. > | > > | > OK. But then, I don't understand why you would want to disable it for > | > C89 (the same reason(s) should apply to C++ equally). > | In case rint is defined only by C99 and C89 don't even reserve it, I > | have to. > > I don't have a copy of C89 handy; but I don't think it says anything > about rint. But I still don't understand why you ought to reverse > that portion, if it is spelt __builtin_rint. Please, could you > elaborate? We always recognize __builtin_rint, but we also recognize rint when standard defines is that way. Question is when we should recognize what. Honza > > -- Gaby